Labhjit Singh Alias Lovejit Singh vs State Of Punjab

CRM-M-4015-2026 (O&M)

- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
222
CRM-M-4015-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.10.2026
LABHJIT SINGH ALIAS LOVEJIT SINGH
....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Present : Mr. S.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab.
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)
1. The present petition has been instituted against the order dated
01.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar
in FIR NO.159 dated 08.12.2024 under Sections 21/29 of NDPS Act, 1985, P.S.
Khilchian, District Amritsar Rural, vide which the application moved by the
petitioner for releasing the vehicle bearing registration No. PB07-BX-3678 on
superdari during pendency of trial has been rejected.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through
the material placed on the file.
3. Following order has been passed by the learned Special Judge/Trial
Court, while rejecting the application:-
“Report has been received from SHO, P.S Khalchian,
Amritsar, wherein, it is submitted that vehicle i.e. Mohindra
Bolero bearing registration No.PB07-BX-3678 has been
involved in this case, but the police has objection, if it is
released on sapurdari to the applicant, as recovery of 10 gms
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.10.31 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CRM-M-4015-2026 (O&M)

- 2 -

Heroin has been effected from the applicant. It is also stated in
the report that applicant Sukhjeet Singh and others are doing
the business of selling Heroin by using the above said vehicle
and ownership of the above said vehicle is yet to be verified.
Therefore, in view of the report submitted by police as well as
objection raised by the police, the present application is hereby
dismissed. Papers be attached with the main file.”
4. The application has been rejected on the ground that the vehicle was
being used for trade of narcotics, as 10 grams of heroin was recovered from the
applicant while he was travelling in the said vehicle and the ownership of the
vehicle is yet to be verified. However, the applicant has placed on file the certified
copy of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle, obtained from the copying
agency of the office of the District & Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, which shows
that applicant is the registered owner of the said vehicle and the Registration
Certificate must have been filed by the police alongwith the challan/final report.
The ownership of the vehicle is thus not in dispute. Even otherwise, learned
Special Judge could not have been rejected the application on the ground that
ownership has not been verified and the Trial Court should have called for the
report from the concerned Police Station to report as to whether the applicant is
the registered owner of the vehicle or not.
5. Beside this, law is well settled that a vehicle seized during
investigation under the NDPS Act cannot be allowed to be detained in the police
station and the same should be released on superdari during pendency of the trial,
as vehicles get damaged when they remain parked in the police station. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in 2025(1) R.C.R (Criminal) 486 Bishwajit Dey Vs. The State of
Assam has categorically held that a vehicle seized in the commission of an offence
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.10.31 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CRM-M-4015-2026 (O&M)

- 3 -

under the NDPS Act can be released on superdari during the pendency of trial and
has held as under:
“34. This Court is also of the view that if the Vehicle in the present
case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over,
it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles
in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle
is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the
vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce.
35. On the contrary, if the Vehicle in question is released, it would be
beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to
the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and
to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available
for transportation of goods).”
6. Besides this, Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2002)10 SCC 283
Sunderbhai Ambala Desai Vs. State of Gujarat , has held as under:
“17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep
such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for
the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking
appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the
said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done
pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles.”
7. As such, the vehicle in question owned by the petitioner ought to
have been released on superdari by the learned Special Judge and the Court could
have imposed stringent conditions while releasing the same on superdari.
8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is allowed
and the impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Amritsar, is set aside. The vehicle bearing registration No. PB07-
BX-3678 is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner, being its registered
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.10.31 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment

CRM-M-4015-2026 (O&M)

- 4 -

owner, on superdari , subject to the usual terms and conditions, to be imposed by
the learned Trial Court.
(YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
30.10.2026 JUDGE
amandeep
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
AMANDEEP GOSAIN
2026.10.31 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
order/judgment